Journal of Asian Multicultural Research for Medical and Health Science Study

The Anticancer Potential of Nelumbo Nucifera Leaves in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review of Molecular and Experimental Studies

2025-08-08T14:48:43+07:00

Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent malignancies globally, and resistance to standard therapies such as tamoxifen and trastuzumab poses significant treatment challenges. Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) leaves contain bioactive compounds, including kaempferol, quercetin, and neferine, which exhibit promising anticancer properties through multi-target mechanisms. This review aims to synthesize preclinical evidence on the anticancer potential of lotus leaves and compare their effectiveness and molecular pathways with other herbal extracts tested in breast cancer models. A narrative review of studies published between 2015 and 2024 was performed using PubMed and ResearchGate databases. Eligible studies included in vitro, in vivo, or silico models evaluating lotus leaves or related herbal extracts against breast cancer. The selection process adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Lotus leaf extracts demonstrated approximately 85% inhibition of migration and metastasis in breast cancer models via multiple pathways, including TGF-β/SMAD, ERK, PI3K/Akt, and apoptotic signaling. These effects were validated in xenograft and metastatic models and, in some cases, surpassed the efficacy of standard agents. Comparatively, Nymphaea mexicana achieved the highest inhibition (~88%) but lacked detailed mechanistic data, while lotus seedpod extract (80%) showed activity against radioresistant models via DNA repair inhibition. Lotus leaves exhibit potent and broad-spectrum anticancer activity through multi-pathway mechanisms, positioning them as promising candidates for integrative breast cancer therapy. Further research should prioritize standardized extract preparation, dose–response studies, and clinical validation to translate preclinical findings into therapeutic applications.

Diagnostic Performance of Sepsis Scores in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study

2025-06-03T14:46:33+07:00

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of three commonly used sepsis scoring systems—SIRS, SOFA, and qSOFA—in patients presenting to the emergency department.

Design/Methodology/Approach: A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted using data from 800 adult patients who presented to a tertiary hospital emergency department with suspected infection between January 2023 and December 2024. Sepsis was defined according to Sepsis-3 criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated for each scoring system.

Findings: SOFA demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance (AUC: 0.87), followed by qSOFA (AUC: 0.74) and SIRS (AUC: 0.71). SIRS had the highest sensitivity (84%) but lowest specificity (55%). qSOFA showed the highest specificity (88%) but lowest sensitivity (50%). SOFA achieved balanced sensitivity (80%) and specificity (78%). Subgroup analysis showed that SOFA was superior in predicting ICU admission and mortality, while qSOFA was effective for identifying critically ill patients.

Conclusion: Among the evaluated scoring systems, SOFA provides the best diagnostic accuracy for sepsis in the emergency setting. While qSOFA is useful for identifying high-risk patients quickly, its low sensitivity limits its standalone utility. SIRS remains highly sensitive but lacks specificity. These findings can support clinical decision-making and triage in emergency care.

Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness and Patient Satisfaction of Topical, Topical Plus Systemic, and Topical Plus Laser Treatment in Patients with Acne Vulgaris

2025-08-18T15:28:08+07:00

Acne vulgaris is a common skin disease and can reduce the quality of life and cause psychological distress. This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness of topical monotherapy, topical plus systemic, and topical plus laser treatment in patients with acne vulgaris. A quantitative study with a prospective cohort design was conducted at Erha clinic from April 2024 to March 2025. Data determining clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction, treatment cost and cost-effectiveness using lesion counting, Investigator Global Acne (IGA) scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and total cost calculations were measured at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks of treatment, and analysed using IBM SPSS version 22. Patients in topical monotherapy, topical plus systemic, and topical plus laser group recorded a median baseline lesion of 15 (14-16), 15 (15-17), and 21 (20-22), respectively, and 96.6% had mild to moderate acne, 90% moderate acne, and 76.7% severe acne based on IGA scores. These treatment modalities reduced 15 lesions for topical monotherapy, 15 lesions for topical plus systemic, and 21 lesions for topical plus laser, respectively, with 100% of topical monotherapy and topical plus laser, and 96.7% of topical plus systemic group achieving clear skin at week 12. The topical plus laser treatment provided the greatest and fastest acne lesion improvement and satisfaction, but at the highest cost. The choice of acne therapy should consider the balance between clinical effectiveness and cost-efficiency, especially in Southeast Asia with limited access and resources.